Creating Car Free Cities

Silas writes "CarFree.com is a great site that "proposes a delightful solution to the vexing problem of urban automobiles." The site presents a fascinating, detailed proposal for a major city (1 million people in 100 square miles) that doesn't require the use of cars. This isn't a new concept; a lot of the ideas are modeled off of major car free cities in Europe (like Venice)." The page on Morocco is fascinating.

CarFree.com

Sponsored by Segway and Amazon.com. Remember, buy a Segway and go car free!

Re:CarFree.com

Buy a bicycle and go car free, more like. What are the advantages of a Segway over a bicycle?
(a) You don't actually have to pedal to push your fat ass up a hill;
(b) You don't have to share the road with cars that might hit you;
(c) You can ride on the sidewalk, being relatively safe without actually breaking the law.

Let's tackle these arguments point by point:
(a) If you're so fat that you can't push yourself up a hill on a bicycle, then you're too fat. See a doctor, seek professional help. Bitch all you want about choice, I dont want to pay 10 cents extra for fries because you sued McDonald's over your self-induced aneurism. To misquote Barry White, "Your Fatness is your Weakness."
(b) Yes, riding a bike on the streets is dangerous. I know, I commute to/from work 20 miles/day on a bike, in traffic, in what has been described as the worst, most aggressive rush-hour traffic in the US. But I've been doing it for 10 years, and by being careful, I have yet to get hit by a car. I don't expect everyone to be as careful as I am, but I don't expect that in a car either. Sure, you're more vulnerable on a bike, but OTOH you're not going nearly as fast (well, okay, I've topped 40 mph under normal road conditions and 60 mph when the road was blocked to cars, but your average cyclist wouldn't do that). Seems to me that it balances out.
(c) Riding on the sidewalk rather than the streets makes you safer, sure. It makes pedestrians significantly less safe, since they become suddenly at risk of being hit by heavy objects moving at high speeds. So what's good for you *on* the Segway is bad for you *off* the Segway. In addition, you still have to either stop at red lights, or run the lights and risk getting hit by cars - in addition, in most cities you have to go at the speed of pedestrians when you're on the sidewalk. This defeats the purpose of riding on the sidewalk to begin with.

Basically, if you ride on the streets you become a bicyclist who doesn't pedal. If you ride on the sidewalk you become a pedestrian who doesn't move his/her feet. Either way, the only advantage you gain is that you don't have to actually exercise your fat ass, so you can burn even more fuel dragging yourself from point A to point B without helping yourself in any other way. Now, who wants a Segway?

Re:bikes on sidewalks

Obviously, both your troubles ocurred in an area known as statistically dangerous for alcohol related accidents. This is also why it is dangerous to ride a bike near churches, police stations, and airport runways.

This doesn't even take into account NYC, where it is traditionally acceptable to drive on sidewalks during rush hour, provided you honk the horn repeatedly.

Re:CarFree.com

Whoa there! In literary circles there's an idea called "context", in which discussions of bikes vs. Segways don't degenerate into discussions of bikes vs. cars or pedestrians. But thank you for supporting debate rather than just using mod points - I'd much rather have to defend my beliefs than be told unilaterally "you're wrong". As for your argument:

(a) Yes, pure trolldom. But since my point was to discuss bicycles vs. Segways (which are roughly equivalent with regard to speed but nothing else), I feel justified in trolling. The implied solution I offered was to ride a bike rather than a Segway. That way you not only get some exercise, but you get some legal protection as well (read below). And for the amount of money you'd spend on a Segway, you can get a REALLY nice bike.

(b) First of all, you're wrong - it's the RELATIVE velocity of the two bodies that's important. I won't argue here about the relative speeds of bikes vs. Segways, because I don't expect everyone to be riding their bikes (or driving their Segways) at top speed. Regardless, I agree that getting hit by a car when you're on a bike totally sucks. But getting hit when you're on a Segway, for which most state codes don't have laws about wearing helmets or obeying the rules of the road, isn't any better. And as you point out, "Riding on the sidewalk doesn't necessarily make you safer" [slashdot.org], which argues against one of the justifications for a Segway, "You don't have to share the road with cars that might hit you". As for my "great luck", it comes from being careful and following the rules of the road - read below.

c) What did you expect to happen when you were riding on the sidewalk? Your typical driver doesn't expect high-speed traffic on the sidewalk. This is my biggest argument for bikes vs. Segways. If you're going to go fast, you should be on the street - most states' vehicle laws regarding bicycles (read mine here [state.ma.us]) specify that you can only ride on the sidewalk "outside business districts when necessary in the interest of safety...." If you're riding fast, you should be in the street so cars pay attention to you. This, and the fact that I expect cars not to notice me unless I force them to, is why I haven't been hit, not my "great luck", as you imply. If you weren't riding fast (i.e., if you were going at the speed of typical pedestrians on the sidwalk), then your argument has nothing to do with bicycles, because you would've had the same problem as a pedestrian. In any case, since there are no laws preventing people from riding Segways fast on the sidewalk, your experience only supports arguments against using Segways.

I don't care if you walk, drive your car, ride a bike, or steer a Segway - my point is that a Segway is equivalent to a bicycle (a) without the legal restrictions, (b) without the safety regulations, and (c) without the exercise. So why should I want to ride one?

Re:CarFree.com

You bet! Each of my legs weighs 80 lbs, the rest of me weighs 40.

forget the cars

Here is where i see the future ! [rr.com]

Re:forget the cars

Forget the cars and buy an SUV so you don't look over and see tires instead of windows?

Yes, let us forget the cars for they are on the verge of being environmentally friendly (anyone else drive a hybrid) and SUVs are still sucking it down like -- well you know like what --

Besides, now that there are so many SUVs anyone in a small car is much more likely to get squashed in an accident rather than dinged or jolted.

Whew!

Anything is better than the car-clogged cities we have today. Small trips have big cap fares as it takes longer to get there. I tried walking from one hotel to another in Las Vegas, I thought I was going to die from inhaling all of that pollution. At least Las Vegas is moving in the right direction with mono-rails (yes, MonoRail!)

If only NYC and others followed with some awesome inovations.

public transportation in NYC works well

NYC is one of the best cities for public transportation in the US. The subway system alone is extensive.

But what many people overlook is that a large fraction of the cars are taxis and limousines. And taxis are fairly affordable.

You can get by without a car in NYC because you can just flag down a cab any time, day or night. Widespread availability of taxis is an important part of a city free of (personal) automobiles. If other cities had a taxicab system as good as that in NYC, far fewer people would need cars. As a bonus, it is politically and practically much easier to convert taxi fleets to new standards (natural gas, hydrogen, electricity) than personal automobiles.

Re:public transportation in NYC works well

Spent a lot of time in NYC, which has one of the "best" public transportation systems in the world. Spent a lot of time in Atlanta, which has one of the worst.

Here's the problem. Make all the claims you want about the great convenience of public transportation, but nothing--nothing--NYC has beats the convenience of getting in your car, pulling right into a parking spot 100ft from the store (one of dozens of spots available), putting your purchases in your trunk, and then pulling right back up to your abode. This is city life in Atlanta. You don't walk anywhere, ever. Even if it's right across the street, chances are the street is 4 lanes wide and you have to traverse a couple acres of parking lot to get there. Besides residential streets, just about every commercial street is a first class highway.

NYC? It's a hassle. Everyday life is a hassle. Going grocery shopping is a hassle. Purchasing anything that you can't carry easily in your arms is a hassle. People do it, but it's a hassle. Subways are extensive, but crowded, stations are nasty and ridiculously hot. You have to walk for a quarter mile in the maze of some large stations to just chage lines (i.e. times square/42nd street station), Trains often have panic-inducing delays where youre stuck on the train--hey the system's old, sometimes something malfunctions, sometimes somebody pulls the emergency break, sometimes somebody's causing trouble and they need to wait for authorities---maybe for 5 minutes, maybe for 50 (god help you if really were planning to jump off at the next stop to hit a restroom).

Taxis? Always available?! HA. Try catching a taxi anywhere in midtown around 11 to midnight on weekends when the theaters let out. Try catching a taxi anywhere during rush hours.

Now, transport in Atlanta isn't all fun and games either. Try coming home from work 5:30 on 285-West (Atlanta's perimeter). Atlanta's regarded as having one of the worst traffic situations of any major city in the nation. Already Atlantans have longer average commute (in time) of any major city. But on weekends, or during non-peak traffic times...it's simply a breeze.

Atlanta is a new city, that really began growing after the invention of the automobile. So where as an old city like NYC or Boston is actually built at the scale of the human, Atlanta, like most big western cities, is built at the scale of the car. Pedestrians are the exception, and they're taking big chances.

This makes for a really sprawling, uncozy, alienating, uninviting city life. But I don't feel like NYC, for all its humanscale traffic is much more cozy. It's a hectic headache.

There's gotta be new thinking in people moving...focusing not just on environment, but quality of life and practicality,

Re:public transportation in NYC works well

NYC? It's a hassle.

Obviously, you didn't get the hang of living in NYC :-)

Everyday life is a hassle. Going grocery shopping is a hassle.

Why in the world would you go "grocery shopping", in the suburban sense? Eating out is cheaper and better. Delivery takes a few minutes. Grocery shopping for most Manhattanites means "olives for the Martini" or maybe "a gourmet salad for after the show/party".

Purchasing anything that you can't carry easily in your arms is a hassle.

That's what delivery and doormen are for.

Taxis? Always available?! HA. Try catching a taxi anywhere in midtown around 11 to midnight on weekends when the theaters let out. Try catching a taxi anywhere during rush hours.

It's all in the wrist.

but nothing--nothing--NYC has beats the convenience of getting in your car, pulling right into a parking spot 100ft from the store

There are plenty of things that beat that, like letting other people do the work for you: delivery, handymen, restaurants, cab drivers, etc.

Seriously, you complaints sound about as quaint as if you had said "Life in NYC is so hard: lugging up all those containers full of soil to my balcony for my potatoes, and the chicken I keep in my bathtub keep me up all night. It's a wonder New Yorkers haven't all starved yet."

Segway?

I was under the impression this is exactly what the Segway HT was designed to accomplish. Cleaning up cars obviously means much less pollution.

It's a great concept in general- people would be more likely to walk to where they had to go, rather than drive half a mile to the store to pick up the ice cream and chocolate syrup.

Re:Segway?

This is fine if you live in a city that supports walking. I live in Dallas, Texas, USA - a city spread out and practically designed around the automobile. I live in a suburban area that's 3-4 miles from a grocery store, 3-4 miles from a gas station, 50 miles from my office and at least 10 miles from the nearest major shopping center. It's not a matter of wanting a car, it's a matter of having a car in order to function.

I really wish, though, cities like Dallas and the surrounding area would make a more concerted effort to expand transportation and encourage companies to build and rent office space near major rail line depots. For someone like me, public transportation isn't even an option since the buses don't run anywhere near my home or office, let alone the rail lines.

Until we see not only cleaner cars or alternative forms of transportation, but also cities helping out the suburban sprawl, people won't be ready and willing to give up their transportation for something like a Segway HT.

Make the market do it

For someone like me, public transportation isn't even an option since the buses don't run anywhere near my home or office, let alone the rail lines.

Why do you live 50 miles from work? Is there no affordable accomodation within 10 miles? If you (and everyone else with similar desires for change) actively sought housing closer to your workplace, you would create a demand for a different type of housing supply, rather than the endless monotony of suburbia.

Everyone could live near work, but few are willing to change their lifestyle. There are a few things that would have to change from today's norm, including adapting to slightly smaller houses, much smaller yards, etc. Think of row housing, with enough yard for a small garden, and you get the idea. It would be much more sustainable, but most people want a freestanding house in the 'burbs, with a big driveway, and lots of useless lawn.

I live 25km from work, and commute via bike and bus. It takes about twice as long as a car, but I don't get to work frustrated from the traffic. Five or ten years from now, I expect that my next house will be closer to work, smaller, and better designed. Many poeple I know expect to keep upsizing to ever-larger houses on more land, further from work. Most environmental problems are not someone else's fault, they result from decisions we make every day, magnified by millions or billions of people.

Re:Make the market do it

Alas, I recently ran over either you or one of your biker friends. I am very sorry.

I was just on my cell phone trying to find a house further from my work... and calling the lawn people because my neighbor's grass is two shades greener than mine (i hate that bob.)

Sincerely,

AC

Re:Make the market do it

Do you think we always choose the way things are? When I bought my house, it was just a few miles from work. Then I got laid off and took the only job I could find. If you own a house, you'll know it's not always feasible to just sell every couple of years and move, so I commute a great distance in order to have a decent job.

I also bought where I did because I get more house for my money. Why move to a neighborhood near my office where I pay $30K more for half the house? The neighborhoods outside of the area my office is in are home to majorly affluent people (to me at least). What I think you don't understand is that developments are built by corporations that determine what type of people they want to live in a particular area. Just because some average Joe like me comes along demanding less expensive housing doesn't mean they'll create it for me and the others. If you've ever been house shopping, you'd understand that you have to buy in the areas that meet your budget. One just can't go out and build a cheap house next to their office because that's what fits their daily life.

As far as a useless lawn...you don't have kids, do you? There's something to be said for having a nice backyard where your kids can play and have a bit of independence without having to always drive to the park (no parks really near my house).

Re:Make the market do it

Unrealistic in Dallas. In order to afford (comfortably) a very average 1800 sq. foot house I live in Denton, which puts me 32 miles away from Work.

Every 5 miles closer to work I get house values increase dramatically. The same house (same builder and everything) is $20,000 more expensive just 15 miles down the road.

Another more pressing problem is that my wife and I both have careers. She is a PhD student at the University of North Texas, I work basically in Irving. It's not feasible for both of us to live close to our respective daily destinations. We can both live 15 miles away, but that doesn't really solve anything does it?

The answer really is functional mass transit. In Dallas (worst case city wise) there is a nice light rail system that runs through the central part of town (right down the central expressway). If you live in the north-central part of town, you can get to the downtown area with no effort.

The problem is that for those of us live in other parts of town the mass transit option is completely non-existent. It would take me 30 minutes to reach a transit station (by car) and then I could ride the rail to the same street as my work and then spend another 25-30 minutes on a Bus. Suddenly my commute has tripled in time if I choose the mass transit option... that's just not feasible.

We need an in-expensive retrofit transport solution. That computer controlled, elevated personal taxi system on slashdot awhile back seems like the most interesting solution I've seen. Monorail type systems have all of the same problems as current light rail, with the added bonus of extra cost. The hub and spoke model heaps inconvienence on the commuter, and is incredibly inefficient at actually getting people to work (although incredibly efficient at getting them all into one place).

I WANT to take mass transit. I hate driving. I'd rather read and drink coffee while someone else drives me... but I simply don't have that option right now. When my wife graduates, mass transit options are going to go a LONG ways in determining which city we live in next.

Re:Make the market do it

> Why do you live 50 miles from work? Is there no affordable accomodation within 10 miles? If you (and everyone else with similar desires for change) actively sought housing closer to your workplace, you would create a demand for a different type of housing supply, rather than the endless monotony of suburbia.

Yes! Increased demand for housing in urban areas! Just like paying $2000 for a studio apartment in San Francisco during the dot-com years, but with even more demand for living space!

Gee, sign me up. NOT.

Ignorant

I'm sorry, but I have to take this apart.

Everyone could live near work, but few are willing to change their lifestyle.

Absolute bullshit. There are zoning laws, and it just so happens most people work in commercial or industrial zones and live in residential zones. There are industrial areas in most major cities where there is no "nearby" housing. The closest house (while still miles away) is usually not of the quality one would choose if they had the chance to get away.

most people want a freestanding house in the 'burbs, with a big driveway, and lots of useless lawn.

You obviously don't have children or pets. A lawn is only as useless as you make it. If you don't like the outdoors, I guess you don't need a lawn; however, if your dog likes to run around or your kids need a safe place to play outside while you keep an eye on them, your lawn is excellent. If you like to sit outside and smoke a cigar and play guitar, you enjoy your lawn. If you like to do lawnwork (I know plenty of people who do) then your lawn is anything but useless.

I live 25km from work, and commute via bike and bus.

Seeing as you measured in km I am assuming you are in Europe where (surprise surprise) public transportation is much more common. Average cars of a European household is one. I have no idea what it is here, but I'll tell you, most places don't have good public transportation. Cabs are expensive and buses only hit the poor or elderly neighborhoods. Most train stations are dirty and dangerous.

All that said, I agree that wiser decisions on everyone's part can help. However, you make it sound like a point blank choice of whether to drive a car or not. In most parts of the United States it is necessary to function.

Re:Make the market do it

Cars are cheaper to own and maintain than midtown/downtown apartments.

Not for me.

Maybe 5 years ago, I would've agreed with this, but now I don't. To me, it seems the main reason of "banning cars" is to make the environment cleaner. But with these new fuel cell cars and electric/gas hybrids, cars will be emission free soon. This idea doesn't really do it for me.

Re:Not for me.

Even with "emission free" cars, you still expend the energy to move the car to being with. Getting rid of pollution is an important goal, but the ultimate goal should be to conserve the environmental resources required to produce and operate cars. By creating a city in which cars are less necessary, you reduce the energy consumption of the average citizen, even after you factor in the energy required to operate the 24-hour mass transit systems.

Re:Not for me.

To me, it seems the main reason of "banning cars" is to make the environment cleaner.

...consider that no cars = greatly increased public safety. Consider, too, that having that no cars would encourage diverse, "fun" neighborhoods--residences and businesses intermingled, instead of huge, dull blocks of houses. Things like neighborhood markets and restaurants would make a real comeback. And of course, there's always the very real health benefit of that much more walking on a daily basis...

don't think mfg a car / roads roads is harmful?

Consider all the human labor and parts, each part built of resources harvested from the environment. Each hour translating into time you spend working to support that car. Consider the sum cost of your car / insurance / fuel / registration / parking tickets in a year. You WORK to support that. Wouldn't you rather be free of that?

Consider all the NOISE that comes off a freeway, as well as the fact that tar / asphault highways must be MAINTAINED. If you live in a city, think about how many times you've suffered the noise from a jackhammer. Think of all the times they've torn out a road to fix a pipe, and then replaced the road with something worse than you had in the first place.

Consider the environmental eyesore that a TEXACO / CHEVRON / SHELL station is. Try to remember what the country looked like before the drivethrough convenience store. You used to be able to walk to those places. Now our cities are half parking, guessing 5% auto maintenace commerce, roadside billboards. Where's the soul?

If you've been victimized by them (i have), consider the involuntary stress / tightening of your jaw muscles when you see a parking enforcer. Ever had your car hostile-towed?

How about car breakins / vandalism / theft? Been there, suffered that.

Been to a bar lately? Had to get home lately?

Consider the sound of a heavy delivery truck in reverse (beep beep beep). Now scale that to the number of times you hear it. Live in a real city? Ouch.

If you live in a snowy area, think of how it is, scraping ice off your windshield in the morning, and hoping your car battery didn't die. And if it did, paying the tower, or buying a replacement battery.

AND, finally, think of all the money you give to the auto and insurance industries. They ARE the same folks who make tanks and HUM-V's. And, yes, they ARE corporate lobbyists. So when you get a lame war, or when the trolley system in your city gets dismantled, remember whose money was used to give them that political power. It was yours.

I'm sure there's more, but that should press the best buttons.

Think b4 you drive.

Let's see some simulations

Using the latest state of the art in city simulations, something like Sim City 4. Build the city, and see how well it does! Save the game and let us play with the results.

let's be practical about it....

here is another alternative http://www.arcosanti.org/ Arcosanti designed by the world famous artchitect - Paolo Soleri - actaully exists :)

You haven't been there

... have you?
I remember the first time my dad took me there. I was 11 or 12 years old. It was falling apart faster than they were building it. It was an interesting walk albeit risky due to the delapidated nature and lack of any kind of safety barriers. This was roughly 23 years ago.

All these years later not much has changed. The web site makes it look a lot nicer than it really is.

Up to a point...

I have visited some city centers that are car-free, but they are surrounded by a vehicle-supported region. Given that turn-of-the-century (1901) city dwellers and transport providers converted from rail and horse to internal combustion engine as fast as they could when the possibility arose, is it really feasible to do this for an entire city?

sPh

1 million people in 100 square miles? Please.

I'm from NYC. I have that many people in my building!

never!

They can have my car when they pry my cold dead body from its wreckage!

And Venice? Really? So we're gonna replace cars with boats?

Re:never!

"And Venice? Really? So we're gonna replace cars with boats? "

That wouldn't be such a shocking idea if you've ever driven a Lincoln Continental.

Fes...

Fes is not a modern city. If you want to find out what type of people live in the medina, go watch Indiana Jones, it still is like that. It's dirty, sanitation isn't a valid concept in much of the area, and traffic jams consist of someone trying to squeeze a donkey through a 2' road. There are a few routes that have enough room for 2 people and no extra.

The Fes medina is not a modern city, as most of it's buildings are historical landmarkes by other nations standards. If you want a modern city, go outside the medina where the roadways are wide, cars are common, and skyscrapers loom. Comparing the medina to a car-free city is like comparing cave-art to Da Vinci.

Car-free city must be compact

I think for a true car-free city to work, it has to be reasonably compact.

Take for example Tokyo and New York City. The actual amount of land used in the center city is quite small, small enough that walking or using a mass-transit system becomes quite viable.

You definitely cannot do that in Los Angeles, that's to be sure--it's so spread out that you'll need exorbitant amounts of money to build a mass transit system the cover the whole Los Angeles Basin.

Note that in the case of London, England, the Underground subway system got there first before motor vehicle traffic because London HAD to build something to alleviate the horrible street-level traffic of horse-drawn carriages of various types in the late 19th Century immediately. That's why the Underground travels all over the London metro area--in fact, the Underground helped develop a number of London suburbs!

Re:Car-free city must be compact

Note that in the case of London, England, the Underground subway system got there first before motor vehicle traffic because London HAD to build something to alleviate the horrible street-level traffic of horse-drawn carriages of various types in the late 19th Century immediately.

True, however it's important to note that the London Underground started with simply putting trains (regular huge trains with steam locomotives) underground. The main reason for this was the fumes and soot caused by the steam locomotives, and also the fact that there were so many lines coming into the city, they needed to go somewhere, and underground was the best place to put them. It did not start off as an urban transit line or a subway system.

That's why the Underground travels all over the London metro area--in fact, the Underground helped develop a number of London suburbs!

The concept of mass transit creating suburbs is not unique to London. The concept of a "streetcar suburb" is known in nearly every large U.S. city, and others around the world. (It's important to note that the word "suburb" became corrupted somewhere along the line. With the advent of Levittown and the postwar boom, "suburb" became synonymous with "suburbia" - the land of tract housing, large yards, a car in every driveway, and the split-level ranch. That is not, however, what it meant at the turn of the century)

Streetcar companies would buy cheap land at what was then the city limits, built streetcar (or elevated) lines out to the land, parcel it up, and sell it off. Many families bought it, since it was away from the noise of the city, they could have a small yard and such, and yet getting to the city was still easy. The land sales paid for the initial investment of the line, and made a tidy profit for the companies, too.

yes, ban the cars

Cars keep getting in the way of my Jeep [franceisoc...ermany.org] and the pickup trucks of my friends.

Hydrogen baby! The fuel of today.

Problem: car-free is very expensive

The biggest problem with non-car methods of transportation is that it is very expensive to build.

All it takes to move via car is a relatively flat piece of land. If it's paved, all the better, although this is expensive as well (a mile of 4 lane highway costs millions). At least roads are (relatively) cheap to repair... you grind off the old surface, and re-cover the base.

Most non-car solutions involve rail, which is also expensive. Unfortunately, as a city expands, you'd need more and more interchanges, as well as 'feeder rails'. That's a hellacious amount of infrastructure.

Looking at one of the proposed architectures, the spoke-like arrangements, just seems to be comparisons to the cube/squared principle in biology. Perhaps the cities will have a small max size?

Of course, if people use a Segway, bike or (gasp) walk, a lot of this doesn't matter. At 6'5" and 280, I can't use a segway, so t'hell with 'em.

Besides, until 'rocket launcher' is an option, why bother?

Problem: cars are very, very expensive

All it takes to move via car is a relatively flat piece of land.

In the real world, it also takes insurance, traffic police, highway patrols, traffic courts, road cleaning, snow removal, over- and under-passes, gas stations, refineries, planning offices, car junkyards, emergency roadside assistance, fast-responding emergency medical services, helicopters, traffic surveillance, traffic computers,and on and on. Many of those costs are much lower or non-existent for public transportation, and you do pay for them, through taxes, fees, association memberships, auto and medical insurance, etc., expenses you may not associate with cars but expenses that are nevertheless very real.

And those are only direct, easily quantifiable costs. When you add in costs for maintaining a presence in the Persian Gulf, for respiratory diseases caused by pollution, for lost productivity due to traffic jams, for ecological damage from paving over large parts of the country, and other such effects, the costs are even worse.

As an exercise, just total up what you pay in terms of gas, insurance, license fees, interest, amortized purchase price, amortized disposal fees, and other car related expenses per year. I think you'll be surprised how expensive driving it, and that only accounts for a fraction of the costs mentioned above.

Oh, by the way, I don't know whether you are in good shape or not, but if you drive less, chances are you would also be in better shape than you are now (and save on medical bills, too).

Preplanning

I can see maybe designing a city to be car-free, but it seems like it would be next to impossible to convert a typical city to such. Consider:

1) People like cars. Tell them they can't use thier cars anymore, and you're liable to be voted out of office.

2) If you get rid of cars, you have to have an alternative system of transportation in place. Unfortunately, the only place to PUT that system will many times be where the roads are now. Result: you can't build the system until the cars are gone, and you can't get rid of the cars until the system is ready!

Shouldn't We Cut the Admin a Break?

I mean here it is, 5:00 on a Friday and his webserver just melted into a pile of slag.

Er, sorry dude.

Re:Ride a bike, ride public transport

Ever try and ride a bike with 10 bags of groceries? I agree that people waste fuel and cause more pollution by taking cars for short trips but sometimes you just need the carrying capacity.

My beautiful commute

Here's what my commute looks like [waynet.org] after giving up my car in Richmond, Indiana over a year ago. I'm happier, healthier, saving money, and loving it.

I did have to make some lifestyle choices to make this happen: I choose to work downtown and chose to live close enough to walk, bike, skate or unicycle there.

Americans made their bed

The inefficient use of land and the liberal use of asphalt has turned America into a sterile hell of one 8 lane road after another. I understand that many Europeans are envious of our road system but the envy is misplaced when you have to drive way out to get anywhere or--even worse--you have to sit in traffic for 30 minutes to move four miles. That is reality in South Florida and southern California. I don't think everyone needs a car but the political structure here doesn't want to entertain the concept of public transportation. It's a dirty word or a social program at best.

auto industry won't let it happen

they killed the public transport system in Los Angeles in the 30s, 40s and 50s for that exact purpose: force every person to need to own a car.

People's Republic of Boulder

One problem about this concept is that you have to fully dedicate to the concept and not start off with a city or town that already has cars going through it. Case in point: Boulder, Colorado, USA.

Boulder is big into trying to dissuade people from driving cars and to use public transit or other means of getting around. People, bicycles, and other man-powered (or small engine-powered) vehicles have the right-of-way and will use and abuse this fact at any opportunity, walking in front of moving cars and riding against red lights. This causes nasty traffic jams, accidents, and generally pisses people off. The roads are quite cozy and not accomodating to any sort of car larger than a Honda Civic, like my pickup truck.

I would love to live in an auto-free town, riding my bike and using monorails or whatever transport the city provides. But trying to adapt existing cities to this mindset is asking for nothing but trouble.

Transitioning

The biggest problem I have found with these types of advocacy groups is that no one is proposing sensible plans for transitioning away from car-centric urban development.

I am all for living car-free, (In fact I have gone out of my way to organize my life so I only drive about once a week), but the fact of the matter is that we are currently saddled with ugly, sprawling, single-use zoned cities. With the possible exception of places in China, nobody is building large metropolitan areas from the ground up. What we really need are feasible intermediate steps to gradually eliminate the sprawl and the dependency on cars.

Intermediate steps need to have both the short term benefits as well as moving cities towards the goal of reducing auto-dependence.

Not in the U.S.

Too bad they don't address the cultural barriers to car-free cities in the United States. Cars represent freedom here, plain and simple. Until that mindset changes, we won't have a car-free city for all the urban planning in the world. Can you even imagine something as benign as London's new car toll [slashdot.org] happening in Los Angeles or New York? People would scream bloody murder. Granted, there's a geographic component to consider as well; our cities are larger and more sprawling than in Europe or elsewhere.

Living in Japan

On the Discovery Channel there is a show called Extreme Engineering [discovery.com]. It looks like Japan is going to have some really cool designs to fix the growing population and urbran sprawl. One design is called Sky City [discovery.com] which is a city in a building

Depends...

It depends if you want to primarily: A) Reduce traffic B) Pollution A) Requires alternative transport, infrastructure change, and, most importantly, attitude change. B) Simply requires better cars. Implementing method A to solve problem B is like using a hammer to swat a fly. Both problems will have to be solved technically rather than socialogically. We humans are a stubborn bunch.

barking up the wrong tree

Cars provided an incredible service that cannot be matched by public transportation. A truly modern and environmentally designed city that respects the rights of its citizens must keep an individual mode of transportation. Now, the key to this is that this does not mean a car. For example you can use personal transit systems (PRTs) which provide service very similar to your own car. That is, you are the only person in it and it takes you from point A to point B. Such systems run on rails or dedicated lines, and are computed controlled, which allow for much faster speeds (up to 150 mph).

These systems are actually cheap to build if you consider that road space would be freed and can be sold to private parties by the city. Think about it, selling two lanes of 5th Avenue in New York back to businesses would pay for the entire system in Manhattan.

The problem with Utopian ideas...

...is that it is based on the assumption that you can get everyone to agree on the same thing. I think it's safe to say that, unless you are ready to brainwash everyone or legislate them to the point of living in a mental prison then, it's never going to work.

I think we can all remember the end-result of that last great Utopian experiment known as the U.S.S.R.

car free...culture challenge more than anything...

i've gone over 800 miles on a segway ht and was able to give up a car and save quite a bit of $ per month. the city of seattle (where i live) has a fleet of segway hts, and after a year long study they're going to double the fleet. the hardest part is the cultural issues, having a car is what everyone does. there will be many posts here that poke fun of my transportation choices, but i also use a bicycle, public transit and car pools, so it's all about choices and having them...something we should all encourage.

first 800 miles [bookofseg.com]

info on city of seattle [bookofseg.com]

and interview i did with the city of seattle [bookofseg.com]

cheers,
pt

Bad idea

Car's aren't perfect but they are the most economically efficient solution for most places. The main problem with cars is that most governments have decided not to improve the roads when improvements are needed. When they do improve them they do stupid things like the Big Dig in Boston. Trains are wildly expensive for anything but the most densely populated cities. Segway's are too slow to handle long distance travel. Cars are versitile, quick, efficient, and do their job well.

The problem with getting rid of cars is that I want a back yard. The bigger the better. Most people don't want to live on top of one another in big buildings with no place for their kids to play. A world without cars is a world where everyone needs to be packed in on top of each other so that mass transit can work. I don't like that idea.

If the roads are too crouded, build bigger roads. It's not a hard conept. Why do people think they're doing something clever by not building roads when they should (I live in New Hampshire, north of Boston where commuting is horrible.) We waste thousands of man-hours of time every day, waste tons of gas, increase pollution and make thousands of peoples lives more stressful. It's not celever!

Re:Bad idea

"If the roads are too crouded [sic], build bigger roads."

Build them where? If you haven't noticed, that whole "impending food shortage" problem from the early 90s didn't disappear when they stopped making documentaries about it. Already, most cities are built on top of the best agricultural land. Urban sprawl and the suburbs are a real problem.

Besides that, the more fundamental problem with "big roads" is the fact that by increasing road size, you are only making traffic congestion worse. The more spread out a 2-dimensional suburb is, the greater distance you need to travel to get from point a to b. The problem is of course you live at point a, but several hundred people may need to get to point b at the same time. No one seems interested in differential schedules (which are a duct-tape solution to a small portion of the problem anyway), so this isn't likely to be fixed any other way.

Of course, the fundamental problem with your argument goes even deeper. Building bigger roads is only a temporary solution, and as long as it can keep up with traffic congestion, it only encourages urban sprawl. Your suggestion would only work if land and fuel were infinite commodities, and buildings could be moved and roads expanded with ease.

The danger of car free cities

What people fail to realize is that car free cities might soon have a serious violence problem.

Without the most popular mean of overcompensation for, ahem, insufficiencies, more and more people will turn to what were until now secondary means: guns and wife beatings.

We need to figure out a solution to this problem before we take this big step. Perhaps padded shoes or somesuch.

Car free?

OK, I can't RTFA, the host name doesn't even resolve, but...

I guess car free would be OK, as long as:
a. Nobody ever wants to go anywhere public transit doesn't go (another city? countryside?)
b. There's some way to get 50lbs of groceries plus other assorted, bulky, items, to within 10ft of my door while also transporting my wife, two kids and a great-grandparent.

Good luck.

A Pattern Language

Some of the city-design ideas on this Carfree.com site echo those advanced over 25 years ago in the influential book A Pattern Language [amazon.com] by Christopher Alexander, Sara, Ishikawa, Murray Silverstein, and others. This book details a "working alternative to our present ideas about architecture, building, and planning," with over 250 specific advisories starting at the very high overview level ("Independent Regions" instead of our current nation-states) and moving in successive stages down through town design, becoming always more specific ("Mosaic of Subcultures," "Industrial Ribbon," "Nine Percent Parking," placement of food stands and bus stops), and then to low-level details of individual building design ("Sequence of Sitting Spaces," "Light on Two Sides of Every Room," very specific construction details, and "Paving With Cracks Between the Stones").

A Pattern Language is a remarkable book, the principal influence on Stewart Brand's The Whole Earth Catalog and used by the city designers for the upcoming STAR WARS GALAXIES online game. I suspect, but don't know for sure, that its "patterns" concept influenced the current mode of "design patterns" among coders. For other examples of the book's influence, and of the theorists' current work, see their Web site [patternlanguage.com], especially the overview of patterns [patternlanguage.com].

Simply American

Nobody will read this because I didn't post it in the first 12 seconds the article it up but I'll post anyways.

I'm an American from near Chicago IL, but I live in Montreal QC (that's in Canada) completely without at car. The reason I can do this is that the transit and services is setup to let me do this. The metro/bus system is reliable and affordable, and taxis are plentiful and decently priced. If I want groceries I either carry them with me or I can have them delivered to my apartment by any number of grocery stores.

At home, however...

Its HELL. You can't go anywhere without a car. Everything is spread very far apart because either it was built during the "hack and slash" all I want is land years, or because it was easier to put a super-megalo-gigantico mart. These ultra-shops are so big you almost need a car to go through them. It takes forever to get what you actually want, and the service/quality stinks.

The US has simply built cities that are too spread apart. For a nice urban environment you need things less spread apart, with adequate services and clean transportation.

I will only get a car again if I absolutly have to. Otherwise I will rent for vacations.

Rob

Simcity..

I did this in Simcity Classic with trains. I'll submit my solution (saved game) to carfree.com

How to get to a car free city:

Make technology so great that nobody has to leave their home. Ever. Why do we leave home as it is?

1. To go to work. Well, let's get net applications and vpns better so more people can telecommute.

2. For entertainment. DVD home theater packages prove that people will choose to stay home if the technology is good enough. So, we need holodecks at home so nobody will need to leave their home for any entertainment.

3. Food and shopping. Revive WebVan. Amazonify everything else. Deliver everything to people's homes.

4. Social reasons. Improve web video so people can interact via their computers. Less need to go out.

Do these four things. People will still need to go out every once in a while for something tangible (visit the dentist, see Yosemite for real) but you'd severely reduce traffic. And, as people got more overweight from lack of physical activity and eating all the home delivery food, they'd be physically unable to leave the home, reducing traffic further.

If people move to one...

I guess they'll have to strap a subwoofer to their ass so they can still walk down the street and annoy people with their lack of respect for others.

Feel sad for all the weenies that think that a honda looks so much better with fins, spoilers, stickers, neon etc...but I guess that's what body mods are for.

Transportation will not work in the US because ...

The major problem with having a car free city in the US is lack of transportation. The reason we don't have transportation is the way the cities we live in are built. The cities we live in are built the way they are cause every one has a car. Here lies the problem.

The root of the problem is we build our housing in too low a density in the US.
For transit to work there has to be a minimum number of riders for the system to work economically. To get enough riders to do that transit need a certain density of population. Also transit will normally only get riders to walk 1/4 mile to a transit top.

The problem is most Americans want conflicting things in housing. They want a big house, and they want open space. These don't sound like the conflict but they do.

Say you have 10 acres of land. If on that land you you build like most modern subdivisions do, you will build 1/4 of the land in to streets, and then 3-5 houses per acre. Most people see this and think it is great. they have a big yard and a big house and a street. But, what they don't see is that 1/4 of all our property is covered in streets. Now on top of that land getting used for streets tons of other land gets used for parking lots and freeways. Leaving nearly as much land in the US tied up in places for cars to go as places for people to go. Also, because of the low density of this housing to driver from that house to another house (or school or store) you have to drive a lot farther. The result is more cars on the streets making longer trips. People who design networks will see the problem here. In addition this method of building houses results in a very low density of people. For transit to move these people it has to make long trips and people have to walk a long way to get to it. Also because it is making long trips it takes a long time to get anywhere making transit inconvenient. Because its inconvenient no one takes it anywhere, they have to raise prices, less people take it, etc...

Now, if you look at cities where transit works, NYC, SF and most European cities houses are built differently. In all of these places houses are built much denser. Most Americans will bitch that they would feel crowded. But the result is less crowding. The reason for this is by building denser, say 15 - 20 unit per acre you now can house all those people in less space. Also because people are closer together there is less street getting built and less land dedicated to cars. You can now use that extra space for some thing like a park. Because most people are not home most of the time, building public areas results in more efficient use of that space. Some one will be using it all the time.
Now that people are closer to each other, they are also able to walk from place to place. you no longer have to walk past those huge lots, you walk past a nice small lot.
Most importantly now you have the critical mass of people required to make transit work

Now for all those people in Dallas, San Jose, and Los Angeles who say they cant survive with out cars, try traveling to another country and you will quickly learn it happen every day. All we need is to express interest in living that way and we can start building that way. Many cities are pushing very hard to get more people living in the urban core of the city. They are offering tax breaks, low interest loans and other incentives. Developers build houses the market demands. If people demand better housing that works with transit, they will get it. If a city doesn't zone in such a way to build affordable housing near jobs go down to the city planning department and tell them, they can (and will) change the zoning. Cities want to build smarter. It saves them money by decreasing the infrastructure they have to build and the area in which they have to supply services.

the rats will like this

In order to have truly effective mass transportation, you need to pack lots of people into small amounts of area.

Now, some people like living like rats. Just look at New York: wall-to-wall flesh. You can't get away from people, ever.

Others of us don't like living within a mile of a million other people. In fact, if you put us in a situation like New York city for more than a brief period of time, we'll go ballistic and start shooting people at random. In New York this would probably be a good thing, but that's neither here nor there....

In any event, I see a bunch of self-righteous yahoos going on and on about how we should all selflessly give up our vehicles for all sorts of reasons, reasons they consider to be more important than our own personal convenience. To these people I say: fuck you.

Yep, go fuck yourself. Until you provide me with something better than my car, take your senseless yammering and go annoy someone else. I don't give a shit about the environment, your stupid biker friends who never obey traffic laws, the joys of walking to work in the rain/sleet/snow/tornadoes/whatever, my weight or health, or any of that other godawful crap you think is so goddamned important.

Be a good capitalist and give me something better. Until then, get out of the way or I'll run over your sorry socialist ass.

Max

No freight ways is a return to pilferage

In North America the scheme for eliminating freight ways is doomed.

Too much volume. How many donkeys does it take to carry the same weight and volume as a 40 foot semi trailer.? No multiply that by six orders of magnitude.

The use of containers in shipping has eliminated billions of dollars in pilferage and cut many organized crime revenue streams off at the knees.

And if you have roads for freight, they car also carry cars...

What about emergency services?

This site makes no mention of emergencies. If someone has a heart attack does a paramedic have to switch between two subway tracks to get to him and let the poor heart attack victim die? To some extent you need cars for "regular (daily) circumstances"... not just for "special situations" like the site says.

Re:Why I think lots of people hate cars

Oh, please. I recently moved from a small town to a large city(Memphis), which is heavily car-dependent. I must say that I had much more individual freedom back home, where I could walk or ride my bike to the stores, and the traffic was light if I wanted to take my car.

Now, the city I live in pretty much forces me to ride my car everywhere. The geography is such that everything is spread out, so it is impractical to ride a bike, not to mention the fact that the roads are not safe to ride in.

I think that if you want to reduce car usage, you should try to make cities smaller, which makes accomodating pedestrians and bikes easier. Of corse you still need cars for long trips, but one should not have to use one just for everyday tasks. Being forced to use a car is no more free than being forced not to use one.

Re:Why I think lots of people hate cars

Hahaha! Wow, that's hilarious. First, before anyone responds to this guy, check his sig. At this point, the "kook alert" bell should be ringing.

Leftists don't hate individualism, you dummy. They just don't like selfishness - actions that are taken at the expense and harm of others.

Everyone, including lefty types, like the freedom cars bring, but for some, the associated costs are very high. It would be nice to alleviate some of those costs (pollution, congestion, poor urban design) by coming up with something better.

Europeans, in your mind, are no doubt hateful lefties with few redeeming qualities. I recommend you visit, oh, say, Amsterdam sometime. What you'll find are plenty of horrible, socialist, know-it-all, (etc. - all the other name-calling you resorted to) people using an excellent, freedom-enhancing transit system in the city centre, and driving all around in their cars outside of there. Central Amsterdam has great air quality; "bad traffic" is when there are five cars stopped at a light. No one seems to be on their way to the gulag - that would be the U.S., if you happen to be a pot-smoker - and it's safe to say people are pretty individualistic there. The tram and train system is safe, convenient, cheap, and very quick.

As for your absurd assessment of environmentalism - no ideology, not even yours, ever trumps science. Remember that.